Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Citation
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Parent Document
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1990-10-23
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
- Harrison v. Roberts, 800 S.W.2d 40 (1990)
Full Text
833 charsNext, we must determine whether the defendants had that actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Not only does the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom give rise to a jury issue on the question of knowledge or notice, but Mr. Roberts admitted his pre-ex-isting knowledge of the dangerous condition. He told Kim Harrison’s father on the day after the accident that he knew the lumber used to build the porch was untreated, knew it needed painting, had previously promised to paint it and wished he had done so earlier. He also knew that the *44guardrail was rickety, told Clyde Harrison that the porch should have been repaired earlier and was sorry that it had not been repaired earlier. Those admissions are binding on the defendants and easily give rise to a jury issue on the question of knowledge.